Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cymmer Colliery explosion/archive1

Cymmer Colliery explosion

 * Nominator(s): ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In July 1856, an underground explosion of gas at the Cymmer Colliery, Rhondda Valley, Wales, resulted in a "sacrifice of human life to an extent unparalleled in the history of coal mining of this country". This article examines the underlying causes of the explosion, the inquest and trial of the mine's officials, the consequences for families of those killed, and the disaster's legacy in terms of local and national mining practices.

The article is built on high quality sources. I am particularly indebted to and  for reviews leading to GA status, and to  and  for pre-FAC copy edit and technical reviews. I believe the article meets the FA criteria; additional feedback will be gratefully received. Thanks, ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Image review—pass
 * File:Cymmer Colliery, Porth, Rhondda Valley (4641247).jpg potentially URAA affected, but I'm not seeing evidence in the image description that it was published before 1925.
 * Wikitext comment in Licensing cites Penarth Dock: Martin John Ridley. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I don't see where on that page it states that this particular image was published, and second, invisible comments on image description pages are useless, they should be visible. (t &#183; c) buidhe 02:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the version on Wales Library is much higher resolution If it is  a free image, we should be using the highest resolution available. Sadly there doesn't seem to be a "download" button. (t &#183; c) buidhe 03:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, this issue was discussed during the pre-FAC review and I mistakenly assumed prior-knowledge in my reply above. A cropped version of the image was published in Sixty-One Views of the Rhondda Valley. The website cited above discusses this publication. I will move and revise the image wikitext comment. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 03:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Other images OK. (t &#183; c) buidhe 00:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Gog the Mild
Nb, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

I will do some copy editing as I went. Please flag up here anything you disagree with or don't understand.
 * , thanks for your comments. I will address some briefly now and come back to them in more detail tomorrow. I will withdraw the article if you still feel the article is not ready after I make the revisions indicated below. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I don't think that there is any individual point which isn't addressable, but cumulatively they seemed a bit much. If you could get them satisfactorily sorted within, say, a week, then we can move on. It is a great topic and a good treatment of it, my "oppose" was by way of suggesting how it get to FA rather than expressing doubt that it will do.
 * The items below have been addressed, please let me know if anything needs further attention. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 12:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Consider linking "Colliery" to Coal mining. Note that the first paragraph of the lead of this article contains a good brief explanation of some coal mining terminology, a shortened version of which might usefully be added to the Background section.
 * Link added in lead, terminology links and text added to Background. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "One hundred and fourteen men and boys were killed. Thirty-five widows and ninety-two children". The numbers should be in figures per MOS:NUMERAL.
 * "One hundred and fourteen" was written in full to avoid starting the sentence with numerals (this was copy-edited to words by another editor); MOS:NUMERAL indicates use of words is optional for thirty-five and ninety-two. Advice on how to address 114 vs "One hundred and fourteen" would be welcomed. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; my objection withdrawn.
 * The sentence has been revised so it does not start with the number, please advise if the current or previous version works better. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The second and fourth sentences of the first paragraph refer to the human loss. The intervening sentence refers to the proximate cause. The second paragraph then discusses the wider causes of the explosion, without referring to the immediate cause(s). This makes for a disjointed read. (IMO)
 * Sentence order and paragraph structure revised. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see that it is necessary in the lead to pick out the Crimean War as one of the reasons for increased demand for coal.
 * Revised. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not normal to have citations in the lead, which is (should be) a summary of the main article, where the information is cited.
 * MOS:LEADCITE and MOS:LEADREL indicate quotations may be used. IMO, the quotations of HM Mines Inspectors used in the lead provide important, authoritative summaries of the topic. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With the bracketed caveat below, I have no issues with quotations in the lead - and agree with your point. It is the citation I am referring to.
 * Correction. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The quote "neglecting the commonest precautions for the safety of the men and the safe working of the colliery" in the lead is not repeated in the main body, which it should be - see above. (Or, better, it should be in full in the main article and the lead should contain a summary.)
 * The quote appears in the Inquest section. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It does. Apologies. Cntl-f didn't pick it up. (It does now!)


 * "At the coroner's inquest" → 'At the coroner's inquest into the deaths', as an aid to those not familiar with the role of coroners.
 * Revised (also in lead). ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "the subsequent legal proceedings". Rephrase or add to to make clear whether these were civil or criminal (or both).
 * Revised. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "to reduce the reliance on public charity". Possibly "the" → 'their'?
 * Revised. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nine points picked up in the lead rings some alarm bells. skimming the rest of the article.


 * "Inquest": I am not sure about the collapsed list of victims. IMO this should be a separate (list) article and referred to - Wikilinked - from this one.
 * Happy to take a consensus view on this please, other editors have expressed appreciation for the table in the article but I will move it to a list if necessary. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If consensus is against me it is not a show stopper. (Hence my tentative "I am not sure about".) Certainly my personal preferences are irrelevant.
 * IMO, the table presents information from the cited newspaper that is directly relevant to the article, making it readily accessible to the reader. The table is compact in its initial collapsed form and the information can be explored further using the column sorting functionality. My concern re converting it to a separate list article is that the table's functionality would be lost and the list's more general notability might be called into question (based on a single source, unlikely that any of the names mentioned will be linked anywhere else), leaving the list article open to deletion. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "Trial": The quotations make up about half the wordage. See MOS:QUOTE for "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text ...".
 * Revised to reduce reliance on quotes. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "Survivors": similarly re quotations.
 * Revised to reduce reliance on quotes. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A little more on the Mines Regulation Act of 1860 and how, if at all, it was related to this article would be helpful.
 * The Act was, in part, a response to the number of children killed in the disaster, mentioned in Inquest. The text now highlights this relationship. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Pontypridd is duplinked.
 * Good catch, dup link removed. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Image caption: "They were buried in the Cymmer Independent Chapel graveyard (which was almost completely destroyed in 2005)" In what circumstances? Why is this burial site not mentioned in the text?
 * The last citation in the caption links to an explanation for the destruction of the graveyard. As it is not directly related to the 1856 explosion, no further details are given in the article. The Cymmer Independent Chapel graveyard is mentioned in the second sentence of Survivors. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion, per 's recent edit, is to wiki-comment out the bracketed information on the graveyard's destruction. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There is quite a bit more, and I have not yet read most of the article in detail. I am going to jump straight to an oppose on this, as I doubt that a first-time FAC nominator who has already had expert assistance is likely to get this into shape in the timescale expected of a FAC. I would, of course, be delighted to be proven wrong. I recommend that this be withdrawn for further work - I would be happy to assist with this - with a view to a prompt resubmission. There seems to be most of the "meat" necessary for a successful FAC, but it is let down by MoS compliance and, to a lesser extent, flow and context.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Given Gog's suggestion, I'm going to archive this nom. I strongly suggest working with him to get his concerns resolved before renominating. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)